Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

X-ray and gamma-ray timing of GRB 180720B, GRB 181222B, GRB 211211A and GRB 220910A observed with Fermi and ASIM

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports 2.5–3.5 Hz quasi-periodic oscillations in the first seconds of bright gamma-ray bursts and identifies them with the pre-merger spin of a neutron star in a binary merger.

desk verdict Candidate QPOs in four GRBs, but the headline significance and first-detection claim don't survive the trial-correction details; the 22 Hz feature in GRB 181222B is more credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18243 v3 pith:26K2MGG5 submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.HE

M. D. Caballero-Garcia , E. Gogus , J. Navarro-Gonzalez , K. E. Atapin , E. Sonbas , M. Uzuner , A. J. Castro-Tirado , S. B. Pandey
show 15 more authors
Rahul Gupta A. K. Ror Y. D. Hu S. Y. Wu R. Sanchez-Ramirez S. Guziy F. Christiansen P. H. Connell T. Neubert N. Ostgaard J. E. Adsuara F. J. Gordillo-Vazquez E. Fernandez-Garcia I. Perez-Garcia V. Reglero
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsquasi-periodicoscillationsmagnetarsneutronstarmergersFermiBurstMonitorASIMGRB211211Atiminganalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

By building power density spectra from the first seconds of Fermi and ASIM data, this paper finds quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) at about $2.5$–$3.5$ Hz in GRB 211211A, GRB 220910A and GRB 180720B, and a roughly $22$ Hz QPO with harmonics in GRB 181222B. The authors argue that the low-frequency peak is the spin of a magnetar in a neutron-star binary, tidally locked so that its spin equals the orbital frequency just before merger. If they are right, this is the first low-frequency (<10 Hz) QPO detected from a magnetar and the first electromagnetic readout of the pre-merger orbit of a compact binary. The same analysis also shows the roughly 20 Hz signal previously reported in GRB 211211A, linking the result to kilonova and crustal-oscillation interpretations.

What carries the argument

The power density spectrum (PDS) is the central tool: the squared modulus of the Fourier transform of the $1$–$10$ ms binned light curve, normalized in Leahy units, with the continuum modeled as red-noise power laws and the QPOs as Lorentzian peaks. The paper uses the Bayesian likelihood-ratio significance procedure of Vaughan (2010) with nested sampling, and the quality factor $Q$ (peak frequency over full width at half maximum) is both the QPO definition and a fit parameter. The physical machinery is tidal locking: at an orbital period of $0.3$–$0.4$ s, the magnetar's spin is synchronized with the orbit, so the observed $2.5$–$3.5$ Hz peak is read as the pre-merger spin/orbital frequency, while the roughly 20–22 Hz peak is read as a crustal oscillation mode.

What would settle it

Re-run the analysis with time windows chosen before looking at the data and count every trial across bursts, instruments, and intervals; if the $2.5$–$3.5$ Hz peaks fall below about $3\sigma$ after that full correction, the pre-merger spin interpretation is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that power density spectra of the early high-energy light curves of three bright gamma-ray bursts contain a narrow peak at $2.5$–$3.5$ Hz, with GRB 181222B showing a peak at $21.8$–$22$ Hz plus less significant harmonics. The low-frequency frequency agrees between the independent ASIM and Fermi detectors for the same burst, and in GRB 211211A and GRB 220910A a second peak appears at roughly twice the first frequency. The paper identifies the $2.5$–$3.5$ Hz signal with the pre-merger orbital frequency of a neutron-star binary, equal to the spin of the tidally locked magnetar component, and the roughly 22 Hz peak with crustal or torsional oscillations of the neutron star. This would make the low-frequency feature the first sub-10 Hz QPO from a magnetar and the first electromagnetic trace of the orbit whose coalescence produces the gamma-ray burst and, presumably, a gravitational-wave signal.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the $2.5$–$3.5$ Hz peaks are not just the loudest fluctuations expected when many time windows, bursts, and instruments are searched; the paper's trial correction counts only frequency bins in each power spectrum, not the full search space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the low-frequency QPO is real, the pre-merger orbital frequency of a neutron-star binary is directly observable in electromagnetic data for the first time.
  • The same $2.5$–$3.5$ Hz feature appearing in several bursts and in two independent instruments per burst points to a common late-inspiral process, supporting a merger origin even for long GRBs such as the kilonova-associated GRB 211211A.
  • The roughly 22 Hz QPO and harmonics in GRB 181222B, together with the earlier roughly 20 Hz detection in GRB 211211A, would locate neutron-star crustal vibrations in the merger environment.
  • A confirmed pre-merger oscillation would give gravitational-wave observatories a predicted frequency band in which to search for the inspiral chirp of the same source.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the time windows were selected after the peaks were seen, the cleanest check is a blind search: apply the identical pipeline to a large sample of Fermi/ASIM GRBs with windows fixed in advance and count how often a $2.5$–$3.5$ Hz peak of this height appears; if the rate matches the trials, the physical interpretation fails.
  • The near factor-of-two spacing between the first and second peaks in GRB 211211A and GRB 220910A may mean the second peak is the first harmonic of the same oscillator rather than an independent mode; this can be tested by requiring the frequency ratio to be stable across bursts and instruments.
  • If real, the pre-merger oscillation frequency measured electromagnetically could be cross-correlated with gravitational-wave data for nearby mergers: the chirp should sweep through twice this frequency in the final seconds, giving a joint EM-GW consistency test.
  • The roughly 20–22 Hz peaks in GRB 211211A and GRB 181222B could be the same crustal or torsional mode family seen in magnetar giant flares, which would connect GRB QPOs to the magnetar QPO literature without requiring a binary companion at all.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a timing analysis of four gamma-ray bursts (GRB 180720B, GRB 181222B, GRB 211211A, GRB 220910A) using Fermi/GBM and ASIM data. The authors construct power density spectra over selected time intervals and report quasi-periodic oscillations at 2.5-3.5 Hz in all four bursts, plus a ~22 Hz QPO and harmonics in GRB 181222B. The low-frequency QPO is interpreted as the pre-merger spin/orbital frequency of a neutron star in a binary merger. Significance estimates are obtained from XSPEC Lorentzian fits and from a Bayesian posterior predictive method following Vaughan (2010).

Significance. If the claimed detections are real, this would be the first electromagnetic evidence of a pre-merger neutron-star spin or binary orbital frequency in GRBs, with potentially important implications for merger physics and for the interpretation of long GRBs with kilonova associations. The paper has concrete strengths: it uses two independent instruments, reports consistent QPO frequencies between Fermi and ASIM for some bursts, provides quality factors, and includes complementary minimum-timescale and spectral-lag checks. However, the central significance claims are not yet established because the trial corrections are incomplete and the Bayesian priors are derived from the same data being tested.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, opening paragraph; Section 2.2, footnote 3] The trial correction is incomplete and this is load-bearing for the central claim. The text states that PDSs were built for 'different time intervals' and that QPOs appeared 'only for certain times onwards', meaning the displayed time windows were selected after seeing the features. Footnote 3 counts only the number of frequency bins per PDS as the trial factor; it does not include the number of time intervals tried, the four GRBs, or the two independent instruments. The tables already show that many low-frequency QPO significances after the authors' own correction are only 1-3 sigma (e.g., Table 1 Fermi: 2 sigma and 2 sigma; Table 1 ASIM: 1 sigma and 1 sigma; Table 2 Fermi: 1 sigma and 2.4 sigma; Table 3 ASIM: 2 sigma; Table 4 Fermi 11.9 Hz: 1 sigma). A global false-alarm probability that accounts for the full search space is required before any of these peaks can be claimed as detections.
  2. [Section 2.5] The Bayesian significance calculation contains a circular step. The Lorentzian centroid priors are set to 'mean and sigma values taken from the standard fitting (i.e., simple minimization of the fit statistic) in XSPEC' on the same data that are then tested for the presence of Lorentzians. This conditions the posterior predictive p-values on the detected peak locations and therefore undercounts the trials associated with searching for peaks at any frequency. The authors should either use priors that do not depend on the fitted peak positions from the same data, or demonstrate explicitly that the reported p-values are robust to the choice of prior.
  3. [Abstract vs. Section 3, Discussion] The manuscript is internally inconsistent about its novelty claim. The Abstract states that these QPOs 'consist on the first detection of low-frequency QPOs (<10 Hz) detected in magnetars so far', but Section 3 says 'Even though rare the current work does not constitute the first claim into the presence of low-frequency QPOs in GRBs neither in magnetars.' This contradiction must be resolved, because the abstract's 'first detection' claim is part of the paper's central message.
  4. [Section 2.2 and Table 2] The significance values quoted in the text do not match the table entries. The text reports significances '8, 5σ and 8, 8σ (ASIM/LED) and 4, 3σ and 5, 4σ (Fermi)', while Table 2 lists, for ASIM/LED, (8σ, 2σ) for both QPOs and for Fermi (4σ, 1σ) and (5σ, 2.4σ). The reader cannot tell which column ('single trial', 'with trials', or 'Bayes.') the text refers to. This ambiguity affects the interpretation of every detection claim and must be corrected consistently.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'The early (T-T0=s)' appears to have a typographical error; the intended meaning is likely 'The early (T-T0 ~ s)' or a specific time interval.
  2. [Section 2.3] There is a duplicated phrase '2.30±0.03, 2.0+0.5−0.10 Hz for for Fermi and ASIM'; remove the second 'for'.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'various observes frame energy bands'; this should be 'various observer-frame energy bands'.
  4. [Tables 1-4] The column labels such as 'QPO S/N (w. trials, Bayes.)' are ambiguous about which sigma is from the single-trial, trial-corrected, and Bayesian procedures. Please define these columns explicitly in each table caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Bayesian significance priors are centered on the same XSPEC-fit QPO frequencies, making the 'w. trials' p-values partly outputs of the detection they validate.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.5, 'The Bayesian method'; results in Tables 1-4]
    "To avoid moving the Lorentzian components to higher frequencies, we changed the position parameter (ν) from uniform to Gaussian priors, with mean and sigma values taken from the standard fitting (i.e. simple minimization of the fit statistic) in XSPEC. The results of this procedure are shown in Tab. 1-4."

    The Bayesian p-values in Tables 1-4 ('w. trials, Bayes.') use Gaussian priors on each Lorentzian centroid whose mean and sigma are taken from the XSPEC fit to the same PDS. Hence the prior is centred on the very peak (2.8, 2.9, 3.1, 2.3 Hz) whose significance is being tested. The posterior-predictive LRT then only explores a narrow prior around an already-detected frequency, removing the frequency-search trials factor by construction. The resulting p-value is partly an output of the same best-fit it is meant to validate: the abstract's central 'well-defined peaks ... 2.5-3.5 Hz' and the Discussion's 'significance ≳5σ' rest on this data double-use. Independent public data could still confirm the peaks, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

No load-bearing self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling is present; the physical interpretation (NS spin/orbital frequency) is imported from an external theoretical paper (Suvorov et al. 2022) and is independent. The main circular element is in the significance estimation: the Bayesian prior on QPO centroids is data-dependent, so the 'w. trials' p-values are partially constructed from the same XSPEC fit that identified the peaks. Separately, the trial correction counts only frequency bins per PDS (footnote 3), not the number of time intervals tried or the multiple GRBs and instruments, and the time windows were selected after the QPOs were seen; these are statistical-validity issues rather than circularity, but they compound the data double-use. The abstract's 'first detection' wording is also internally contradicted by the Discussion ('the current work does not constitute the first claim into the presence of low-frequency QPOs in GRBs neither in magnetars'), which is a consistency problem, not circularity. Because the light curves are public and the QPO frequencies are not derived from the theoretical model, the central claim retains independent content; a score of 4 reflects the partial circularity in the significance calculation without treating the whole derivation as forced.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on fitted Lorentzian centroids and on a pre-merger binary model from prior literature. The statistical trial treatment and the physical identification are the main load-bearing elements, and neither is independently established in the paper.

free parameters (6)
  • Low-frequency QPO centroids (per burst) = 2.8, 2.9 Hz (211211A); 3.1 Hz (220910A); 2.3, 2.0 Hz (180720B)
    Lorentzian centroids fitted to PDS; the 2.5 to 3.5 Hz cluster is the central claim.
  • High-frequency QPO centroids for GRB 181222B = 11.9, 21.8, 34.6 Hz (Fermi); 22.1, 40.3, 59.3 Hz (ASIM)
    Fitted Lorentzians; the 22 Hz component is claimed to match previous GRB 211211A detections.
  • Lorentzian FWHM and normalization = See Tables 1 to 4
    Fitted simultaneously with centroids; these determine the quality factor Q and the reported significance.
  • Power-law continuum indices and normalizations = See Tables 1 to 4
    Red-noise continuum components fitted to the PDS; the choice of continuum model affects whether Lorentzians are needed.
  • PDS time interval boundaries = e.g., 5.8 to 8.8 s, 7.3 to 10.0 s, -9 to 13 s, 0.15 to 5.0 s
    Chosen post hoc in intervals where QPOs are visible; not corrected as a search trial.
  • Bayesian prior centroid location and sigma = Gaussian priors from XSPEC standard fits
    Data-informed priors in the bxa calculation reduce the effective number of independent trials and make p-values partly circular.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Poisson noise in Leahy-normalized PDS has a known level and the Whittle statistic approximates the periodogram likelihood.
    Used for all PDS fits and simulations in Section 2.5.
  • domain assumption The PDS continuum can be modeled as a sum of power laws and Lorentzians, with Q greater than 2 defining a QPO.
    The fit functions and QPO definition follow van der Klis 1989; the chosen continuum shape affects whether Lorentzians are required.
  • domain assumption The selected time intervals are stationary and the QPO is source-intrinsic rather than background or detector induced.
    No explicit background or systematic analysis is presented beyond simultaneous Fermi and ASIM agreement in some intervals; false if the peaks are instrumental or dead-time artifacts.
  • domain assumption The observed 2.5 to 3.5 Hz period is the tidally locked spin or orbital frequency of a pre-merger magnetar binary, following Suvorov et al. 2022.
    The physical interpretation in Section 3 relies on this external model; no independent measurement of binary parameters or merger phase is given.
  • domain assumption Trial correction limited to the number of frequency bins in a single PDS is sufficient for the claimed significance.
    The search over time intervals, instruments, and GRBs is not included in the trial count; if false, the reported significances decrease.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray and gamma-ray timing of GRB 180720B, GRB 181222B, GRB 211211A and GRB 220910A observed with Fermi and ASIM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26K2MGG5

@misc{pith2026241118243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray and gamma-ray timing of GRB 180720B, GRB 181222B, GRB 211211A and GRB 220910A observed with Fermi and ASIM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26K2MGG5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18243}
}
read the original abstract

We present a timing study of the gamma and X-ray observations and analysis of a sample of bright gamma-ray bursts (GRBs; i.e. GRB 180720B, GRB 181222B, GRB 211211A and GRB 220910A), including the very bright and long GRB 211211A (a.k.a. kilonova candidate). They have been detected and observed by the Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM) installed on the International Space Station (ISS) and the Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) on-board the Fermi mission. The early (T-T0=s) and high-energy (0.3-20 MeV) ASIM High Energy Detector (HED) and (150 keV-30 MeV) Fermi (BGO) light curves show well-defined peaks with a low quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) frequency between 2.5-3.5 Hz that could be identified with the spin of the neutron star in the binary mergers (coinciding with the orbital frequency of the binary merger) originating these GRBs. These QPOs consist on the first detection of low-frequency QPOs (<10 Hz) detected in magnetars so far. We also detect a strong QPO at 21.8-22 Hz in GRB 181222B together with its (less significant) harmonics. The low-frequency QPO would correspond to the signal of the orbiting neutron star (NS) previous to the final coalescence giving rise to the gravitational-wave (GW) signal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18243 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Upper) Minimum variability timescale for each burst using the Bayesian blocks binding method (together with data from Golkhou et al. 2015). The probabilities of each GRB originating from the merger (by fitting a gaussian mixture model to the minimum variability time scale) versus T90 distribution are also shown. (Lower) Spectral lag as a function of energy for various observes frame energy bands extracted using GBM… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Top) Barycentred Fermi (BGO; 150 keV-30 MeV) and ASIM (HED; 0.3-20 MeV) light curves of GRB 211211A (T0 =13:09:59 UT) showing the time-interval where the QPOs were the PDS was built. (Bottom) The PDS of the Fermi/b1 (8-800 keV; upper) and ASIM/HED (0.3-20 MeV; lower) light curves of GRB 211211A built at times > 5.8 s. degrees of freedom for the Fermi and ASIM observations, respec￾tively. The QPOs frequencies were m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Top) Barycentred Fermi (NaI; 8-900 keV) and ASIM Low Energy Detector (LED; 50-400 keV) light curves of GRB 220910A (T0 =05:48:21.55 UT) showing the time-interval where the PDS was built. (Bottom) The PDS of the Fermi/nb (150 keV-30 MeV; upper) and ASIM/LED (50-400 keV; lower) light curves of GRB 220910A built at times > 7.3 s. The significance (without and with trials 3 ) of these peaks is high, i.e. 8, 5 𝜎 and 8, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Top) Barycentred Fermi (BGO; 150 keV-30 MeV) and ASIM (HED; 0.3-20 MeV) light curves of GRB 180720B (T0 =14:21:39.65 UT) showing the time-interval where the PDS was built. (Bottom) The PDS of the Fermi/nb (8-800 keV; left) and ASIM/HED (0.3-20 MeV; right) light curves…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  3. [3]

    Belloni T., Hasinger G., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...230..103B 230, 103

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    Buchner J., 2016, @doi [Statistics and Computing] 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016S&C....26..383B 26, 383

    doi:10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y 2016

  5. [5]

    Buchner J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.125B 564, A125

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  6. [6]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A.112C 671, A112

    Camisasca A. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A.112C 671, A112

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245657 2023

  7. [7]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-04101-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Natur.600..621C 600, 621

    Castro-Tirado A. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-04101-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Natur.600..621C 600, 621

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04101-1 2021

  8. [8]

    Chen J., Shen R.-F., Tan W.-J., Wang C.-W., Xiong S.-L., Chen R.-C., Zhang B.-B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973L..33C 973, L33

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737 2024

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3bb7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967...26C 967, 26

    Chirenti C., Dichiara S., Lien A., Miller M. C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3bb7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967...26C 967, 26

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Gao H., Lei W.-H., Zhu Z.-P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac80c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L..12G 934, L12

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Gehrels N., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature05376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.444.1044G 444, 1044

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    Z., Butler N

    Golkhou V. Z., Butler N. R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787...90G 787, 90

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Z., Butler N

    Golkhou V. Z., Butler N. R., Littlejohns O. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/93 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811...93G 811, 93

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    W., Norris J

    Hakkila J., Giblin T. W., Norris J. P., Fragile P. C., Bonnell J. T., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677L..81H 677, L81

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    Huppenkothen D., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768...87H 768, 87

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Darbro W., Elsner R

    Leahy D. A., Darbro W., Elsner R. F., Weisskopf M. C., Sutherland P. G., Kahn S., Grindlay J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...266..160L 266, 160

    1983 doi

  9. [17]

    Li H.-B., Kang Y., Hu Z., Shao L., Xia C.-J., Xu R.-X., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..855L 527, 855

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Liu D.-J., Zou Y.-C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...07..070L 2024, 070

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Johnson J., Sanderbeck P

    Lloyd-Ronning N. M., Johnson J., Sanderbeck P. U., Silva M., Cheng R. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.tmp.2439L

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    L \"u H.-J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6e3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931L..23L 931, L23

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Shenoy A., Sonbas E., Dhuga K

    MacLachlan G. A., Shenoy A., Sonbas E., Dhuga K. S., Eskandarian A., Maximon L. C., Parke W. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01295.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425L..32M 425, L32

    2012

  14. [22]

    A., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432..857M 432, 857

    MacLachlan G. A., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432..857M 432, 857

    doi

  15. [23]

    A., Shenoy A., Sonbas E., Coyne R., Dhuga K

    MacLachlan G. A., Shenoy A., Sonbas E., Coyne R., Dhuga K. S., Eskandarian A., Maximon L. C., Parke W. C., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.2907M 436, 2907

    doi

  16. [24]

    arXiv:1906.12178

    Neubert T., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190612178N p. arXiv:1906.12178

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342747 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...579..386N 579, 386

    Norris J. P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342747 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...579..386N 579, 386

    2002 doi

  18. [26]

    B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.5294P 485, 5294

    Pandey S. B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.5294P 485, 5294

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    C., et al., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220410864R p

    Rastinejad J. C., et al., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220410864R p. arXiv:2204.10864

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A., Dhuga K

    Sonbas E., MacLachlan G. A., Dhuga K. S., Veres P., Shenoy A., Ukwatta T. N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...86S 805, 86

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    G., Kuan H

    Suvorov A. G., Kuan H. J., Kokkotas K. D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A.177S 664, A177

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Levan A

    Tanvir N. R., Levan A. J., Fruchter A. S., Hjorth J., Hounsell R. A., Wiersema K., Tunnicliffe R. L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.500..547T 500, 547

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Tarnopolski M., Marchenko V., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe5b1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...911...20T 911, 20

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Troja E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.2104T 489, 2104

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Troja E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.612..228T 612, 228

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    N., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/1073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...711.1073U 711, 1073

    Ukwatta T. N., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/1073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...711.1073U 711, 1073

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    N., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19723.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419..614U 419, 614

    Ukwatta T. N., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19723.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419..614U 419, 614

    2012

  28. [36]

    Vaughan S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15868.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402..307V 402, 307

    2010

  29. [37]

    I., Yu Y.-W., Ren J., Yang J., Zou Z.-C., Zhu J.-P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964L...9W 964, L9

    Wang X. I., Yu Y.-W., Ren J., Yang J., Zou Z.-C., Zhu J.-P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964L...9W 964, L9

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    arXiv:2205.02186

    Xiao S., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2205.02186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220502186X p. arXiv:2205.02186

    2022 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Yang B., et al., 2015, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/ncomms8323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015NatCo...6.7323Y 6, 7323

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    Zhang Z., Yi S.-X., Zhang S.-N., Xiong S.-L., Xiao S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939L..25Z 939, L25

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    Zou L., Cheng J.-G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6dd9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973..126Z 973, 126

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    van der Klis M., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.002505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ARA&A..27..517V 27, 517

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.